Posted on 06/18/2008 8:44:05 AM PDT by neverdem
This month, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide District of Columbia v. Heller, the most important Second Amendment case in the court's history.
More than five years ago, six Washington, D.C., residents challenged the constitutionality of the city's 32-year ban on all functional firearms in the home. If the challenge is successful, it will mean the court has revisited and perhaps reversed United States v. Miller, the second most important Second Amendment case in the court's history. For nearly seven decades, gun controllers and gun rights advocates alike have struggled to apply the murky doctrines propounded by Justice James Clark McReynolds in his 1939 Miller opinion.
Does the right to keep and bear arms belong to us as individuals? Does that right extend to private use of arms? Or does the Second Amendment simply authorize the states to arm the members of their militias? The court will have to answer those threshold questions before deciding whether the D.C. gun ban is constitutional. Given the bizarre history of the Miller case, its dubious analysis and inconclusive result, about the only guidance Miller offers is how not to go about setting a Supreme Court precedent.
In Miller, two mobsters, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, were indicted for transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines, in violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act. Neither Miller nor Layton was charged with firing the gun or committing any crime involving use of the gun. They were indicted for a technical violation of the registration and tax requirements of the Act.
When the lower court held that the NFA violated the Second Amendment, the U.S. government appealed to the Supreme Court. There, the case took a strange turn. The court gave Miller's counsel, Paul Gutensohn, a mere two weeks to submit his written...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I sure wish I could have confidence that a SCOTUS with seven of nine justices nominated by Republican Presidents could rule correctly on this matter. Sadly, I do not.
Specifically here as the Second Amendment clear and unequivocally states "shall not be infringed".
I’ll settle for a 5-4 with a majority written by Roberts or “Machine Gun” Sammy.
So would I, but the 5-4 decisions haven’t been going our way lately. That causes grave concern on my part.
Given their recent performance, I’m more concerned about four-to-five than seven-of-nine.
My tag line is self explanatory.
this is why it is so important to not to elect Obama or any other liberal into office
Mc Cain wasn’t my choice at all, far from it but I’ll take the lesser of two evils so to speak and have a bit of faith that at least Mc Cain can put two decent justices on the bench.
If I have it correct isn’t here two justice openings coming up and the two stepping down soon are two liberals expecially the worst of all of them .
What I find very interested about the Miller decision, was that the justice for gun control argues that the shotgun had no military use (although shotguns were widely used in trench warfare during WWI).
Ironically, and the interesting aspecit, is that today’s gun controllers argue that specific firearms DO have a military use and then should be banned.
Have to wonder if the SCOTUS decision will touch on this.
Tomorrow is a possibility, it's showing they are in Conference. Next Monday (June 23rd) could be "D-Day" for the Decision.
If Barr wins, we get more Roberts, Alitos, and Scalias.
If we win, in celebration I guess we should all run out in the street and fire our guns in the air!
I never knew the background of the Heller case, or the Miller “precedent”. Thanks for posting this.
You are addressing the here and now, and with regard to that, I agree. I still find the judicial appointment history to be an important thing to take note of.
My point is that for all the carping we do about the importance of judicial nominations, our party hasn’t taken the nomination process seriously at all.
I have taken time to vote for the best Senators I could, always with it in mind that they review judicial nominations. I have voted for Presidents with the goal of making sure the best nominations were made. And although I expect some nomination to sour over time, it is incredible to me that we find ourselves on the wrong side of SCOTUS decisions by 5 to 4.
Our Senators need to wake up and show a little more backbone when it comes to activist judges. I’d like to think our Presidents would make better nominations, but even if a bad one sneaks through, our Senators should oppose them. At the current time they do not. They are nothing more than rubber stamps for the President’s nominations, and that must change.
We wield a large influence over sitting justices, and fail our mandate over and over.
I'd support a President Barr. However, I can see no plausible way that he garners more than 5% of the vote nationwide, much less a plurality.
I intend to vote for McCain and trust in his promise to appoint justices in the mold of Alito and Roberts.
LOL! He's got as much chance as Rosanne Barr. C'mon, why waste your time on this nonsense?
Well I hope you’re right. I am very concerned. My take is that they will rule that the Second Amendment does apply to citizen ownership, but they will leave a hole in the decision so broad a Semi Truck could drive through.
States and municipalities will be allowed to severely limit gun ownership on a whim.
I certainly hope I am wrong, but this is my prediction.
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles!
[unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[audience murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
Funny the Left never mentions the early SCOTUS musings on the Second Amendment as presented in the Dred Scott case...
agree we have very serious dangerous times ahead.
This is my first presidential election I can vote in since becomiong American(came from England) and the choices are not exactly thrilling are they
God, please help us?
I see no plausible way he does anything more than guarantee an Obama presidency.
If that is what he wishes, why doesn't he simply come out and say so?
SCOTUS Libs are NOT stupid; agenda-driven, sure, but not stupid. They KNOW what will happen if they decide against a stated, written, enumerated RIGHT.
ESPECIALLY this Right.
If the “Thirds” rule holds true, one third of the Patriots in this country will NOT go gently into that particular night...
That, my friends, is a LOT of pissed-off Patriots and includes a whole mess o’ former (and current) combat veterans, LEOs, and motivated citizens who are determined NOT to give up their rights.
I expect SCOTUS to narrowly review the DC law and craft their decision very carefully, knowing the fine line they tread.
Giving rights to Gitmo detainees is a lot less trip-wire hairy than telling 70 million gun owners you have no rights.........
Welcome aboard Manc. Sorry to present you with this dilema first time out. No, the choices are dismal. Better luck next time I guess.
It's not funny. It's deliberately ignored. It was mentioned in Heller's original decision, Parker v. D.C.
Me neither. I'm still doing it though. Mostly because I don't trust McCain (Gang of 14, Keating 5). But also because I'm in MN. This is the only State Mondale carried.
Because it's the right thing to do. It's the conservative thing to do. My principles don't follow party loyalty blindly.
They rule against RKBA entirely though, 90 million po'ed gun owners suddenly become one hell of an army...
Here's the crucial passage from McReynolds' opinion:"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun ... has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."Thus, Miller applies to the type of weapon, not to the question whether the Second Amendment protects all individuals, only members of a militia or just states.
That's been my argument with gun grabbers since I first read Miller, it was about the weapon - period. Mostly their faces go blank, like I'm speaking Swahili or Latvian.
Remember the Boston Globe idiot yesterday???
Now we have the Philly Flash, and now the Washington Waffle chiming in on some gun stuff today...
Has someone got the scoop on an impending release of information on the Heller case...This could only be the reason why...
Must feel they (Gun Control advocates and their media minions) need to difuse the public anticipation of this historical ruling from the Supreme Court...
Interesting times we live in...
“Because it’s the right thing to do. It’s the conservative thing to do.”
Well said! I’ve had about enough of: “McCain: because he’s the least disgusting of the two.”
manc: Welcome to FR! Something I’ve wondered: English call what we call `cookies’, biscuits, right? So what do they call biscuits?
Don't be so sure. What's so conservative about a fool's errand?
My principles don't follow party loyalty blindly.
This is the part that makes me laugh. What makes you think that I or anyone else who chooses to vote for a viable candidate is doing so out of "blind party loyalty?" What a joke.
In my view, conservatism requires the application of rational thought. It is a certainty that Bob Barr will be nowhere anywhere close to winning. It is a certainty that he will not win a single electoral vote. It's not even debatable. So why waste your time?
What principle exactly informs you to go on a fool's errand? The principle of avoiding an unpleasant choice/task? The principle of making yourself feel good by denying reality? Get over yourself.
Never assume anything with the Supreme Court...
Sure there are two Associate Justices with one foot in the grave...Ginsburg from what I hear has cancer working on her, and Stevens is older than dirt...
Both of those Justices would resign with an Obama win in November by February of next year, giving Obama plenty of time to get his picks in...
If McCain wins, both of those Justices will stay on the bench till they die...Just to keep the chance away from McCain to appoint two additional originalist Justices to the highest court we have...
Thats just the way I see it, and how I would play this for what its worth...
Militias are not the National Guard. The Nat’l Guard is part of the standing Army.
A militia is a gathering of able, citizen fighters during times of duress.
Citizens God-given right to defend themselves (bear arms), means that these militias will then be minimally equipped.
With an overwhelmingly Demoncrat Senate? You are a person of great faith.
You sure as hell aren't doing it out of conservative principle. Party loyalty has got to be the reason. When we were arguing Bush Vs. McCain, Bush won as a MODERATE compared to McCain's liberal side. McCain has only gotten more liberal since then. The only reason the ACU gave him an 80% rating for 2007 was because he missed most of the key votes.
The principle of avoiding an unpleasant choice/task?
It's the Constitution stupid. McCain doesn't seem to like it very much. Global Warming, Shamnesty, alternative energy boondoggles, etc... more of the same creeping liberalism isn't going to be a sea change for the GOP.
With Bush we were told, "We can work on him once he's in office." That didn't work. At best, the guy has had a tough row to hoe and did a mediocre job over all. At worst, there are tons of things he could have straightened out via EO and never did. DRMO sales to the public, arms imports with a "sporting purpose" that amounted to an outright ban, and hundreds of other issues never touched by Bush.
McCain I don't trust to be even as "moderate" as Bush. His record shows a downward spiral and his constant siding with the likes of Snowe (whose ACU rating is to the LEFT of quite a few Democrats) is sickening.
No. Sorry. The fool in this equation is those who abandon principle on the premise of a boogeyman time and again with no real payoff. Pavlov's dog neats a treat now and again or he stops responding to the bell.
McCain is no treat.
Not what we need.
If this decision goes the way it should be prepared for a blitzkrieg of liberal headlines decrying it as unConstitutional and the beginning of blood in the streets. We will then see every shooting in the country become headline news.
Do you mean this column?
Actually the decision noted that is was not within "judicial notice" that short barreled shotguns had a military use, meaning there had been no testimony to that effect. No one was present to argue for Miller during the hearing. And I don't believe the justice was for gun control, the implication seems to be that had Miller demonstrated that short barreled shotguns did have a military use, the Court would have ruled for Miller.
Sure I am. It's simple. One of two men will be the next president. My job is to make the best choice of those two. Anything else is pointless self-delusion.
When we were arguing Bush Vs. McCain, Bush won as a MODERATE
Did you vote for GWB, or um, I forget, who was the throw away vote in 04?
At best, the guy [Bush]has had a tough row to hoe and did a mediocre job over all.
I agree. And yet, if I had to vote Bush v Kerry again, I'd vote for Bush again. It was a complete no-brainer. Just because he's a mediocrity doesn't mean he was the wrong choice. Welcome to American politics. Are you new here?
The fool in this equation is those who abandon principle on the premise of a boogeyman
There is no bogeyman. There's an actual choice: McCain or Obama. As usual, it's a very easy choice. Not pleasant, but easy to figure out. Obama is real. He's not a bogeyman. I think he is clearly the worse candidate.
McCain is no treat.
Again, welcome to American politics. Enjoy your view from the sidelines. I'm sorry you don't have the guts to participate.
McCain won't do that. And if he would, he couldn't. There may never be another decent (conservative) justice on the bench. The Senate Democrats won't let it happen.
But that is a huge risk too...
I join you both in prayer that God will give us a way out of this dilemma.
Carolyn
Er... no. Whoever gets the most votes wins. Attitudes like yours, voting from fear instead of principles, is what makes it a two-idiot race.
I'm sorry you don't have the guts to participate.
Guts? You are the one who'd set the Constitution on fire to elect a liberal party hack. It's your fear that's keeping you in line.
Feel free to be a coward, just stop projecting...
Hey FRiend, let’s try to get this thread back on track.....
So, no biscuits at all in England? No hot baked goods topped with savory sausage gravy or lumps of butter and jam?
I can see why you came over. Again, welcome to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.